Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 34316 (CAL)

SALIL RAY v. DEBAPRASAD NATH, THE DISTRICT JUDGE, PASCHIM BARDHAMAN AT ASANSOL

CPAN/329/2026 · 2026-08-07

Saugata Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Ml- 1486 Ranajit (AR.CT) 07.08.2026 Ct.05 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL CIVIL JURISDICTINO (Appellate Side) CPAN 329 OF 2026 IN W.P.A. NO 26365 OF 2026 Salil Ray -vs- Debaprasad Nath, The District Judge, Paschim Bardhaman Ms. Pampa Dey (Dhabal), Ms. Sangita Banerjee, Ms. Debangana Dey ….for the applicant. Mr. Billwadal Bhasttacharyya, Mr. Pratip Mukherjee, Mr. Atreya Chakraborty ….for the alleged contemnor. 1. Contempt application is heard in presence of the learned advocates representing applicant and alleged contemnor. Report of Section Officer, Mandamus Section dated 29th July, 2026 and enclosed communication of the District Judge, Paschim Bardhaman being alleged contemnor dated 14th July, 2026 enclosing gradation list are perused and those are taken on record. 2. During course of hearing, Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Additional Advocate General representing alleged contemnor has clarified in reference to gradation list signed by alleged contemnor on 18th March, 2026 that in between applicant and one Arif Hossain there is no other candidate placed in the gradation list holding post of Process Server. 3. It is also found from the modified gradation list prepared by alleged contemnor in terms of judgment dated 4th December, 2025 that said Arif Hossain being a direct recruit joined the post of Process Server on 15th December, 2017 is placed above the petitioner and thereafter name of the petitioner is inserted against serial no.2 taking note of date of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Process Server with effect from 10th September, 2018. 4. In view of exercise made by alleged contemnor thereby modifying gradation list on 18th March, 2026 it appears that judgment of this Court dated 4th December, 2025 is complied with. 5. Hence, present contempt application is disposed of and contempt proceeding stands dropped. 6. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law, if so advised. 7. Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) 2